1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to methods and systems for meeting and event planning, and more particularly, to a method and system for selecting facilities (both hotels and meeting space) for holding meetings, conferences, conventions, trade shows, special events, and other group-related events.
2. Description of the Related Art
For any given meeting or conference, there are almost always several hundred, if not thousands, of meeting sites that could adequately host the meeting. A person charged with selecting a meeting site typically goes through a five-step process: (1) choosing the preferred dates for the meeting; (2) choosing a specific geographic location-generally a specific city-for the meeting; (3) determining what amenities the facilities must offer to be considered for the meeting; (4) locating meeting facilities that meet the location and amenity requirements and requesting bids or quotes from them; and (5) evaluating the bids based on a simple cost evaluation (i.e., lower bids are usually better).
The typical five-step process is designed to narrow, as quickly as possible, the number of meeting facilities the planner must evaluate, which means that the planner may never seriously consider a large number of sites that may be suitable for the meeting. Ideally, before choosing a geographic location and preferred amenities, planners would evaluate each potential facility in search of the most ideal, or highest value facility, where value refers to the most benefit, as defined by the meeting planner, for the price. For example, the highest value meeting site typically offers the best combination of location, amenities, and quality of service.
As used herein, a meeting site or meeting facility refers to the hotel where the out-of-town attendees lodge and the location at which the attendees gather. This definition is useful because: (1) the hotel and the meeting location are very often the same facility; and (2) the choice of the hotel and the meeting location are almost always made hand-in-hand (i.e., if they are not the same facility, the hotel will be close to the property providing the meeting space--at a minimum they will be in the same city).
The conventional, above-described manual method of selecting a meeting facility is sub-optimal. There are at least three reasons for this.
First, manual methods fail to identify the meeting facility that offers the most value. Because planners eliminate so many facilities based on geography and amenities, they never seriously evaluate many potential facilities. Furthermore, planners do not consider the all-inclusive cost (travel, lodging, meals, meeting space, and incidentals) of a meeting. Rather they look only at the facility cost. The facility cost has been estimated as accounting for only about 33 percent of the total cost of a typical meeting.
Second, the conventional method creates information flow inefficiencies. One way it does this is by limiting the amount of comparison cost information that planners have when selecting a meeting site. Planners rarely have the time or the access to the necessary information to find out if quoted prices are in line with market rates or reflect special price opportunities. For example, when facilities need to fill excess lodging capacity, they often offer low rates. However, facilities have no truly effective way of identifying the planners who need to plan a meeting during the time the special rate is in effect, or of providing the planners with enough information about the facility to pique their interest. Facilities are limited to direct mail and/or to advertising in publications that are read by meeting planners. Both of these approaches are very inefficient. Likewise, there is no easy way for meeting facilities to communicate to planners the value of cost factors like free airport shuttles or free meals.
Third, the current process is extremely slow. Finding a number of sites that meet a planner's qualifications can take hours or even days. Finding acceptable properties is and has been a manual process, often involving searching brochures, books, association memberships, and personal lists, and asking for recommendations from travel agents. Alternatively, online databases allow limited access to facility information. For example, certain hotel chains have started to put meeting capacity information for their affiliated properties on the Internet. Although these online databases generally allow planners to search for potential sites based on geography and required amenities, there is no reliable way to determine which facilities will be priced within the planner's budget. Also, most facilities must still be eliminated before a planner can effectively request cost information.
Accordingly, there is a need in the art to allow meeting planners to quickly and effectively compute an all-inclusive meeting cost for each of a large number of potential meeting facilities prior to defining geography and preferred amenities.